[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

re: the Who and Yes



From: Jacksonjim@aol.com
>>>
[...]
Undeniably, there are
multi-instrument solos within many great Yes songs ("popular" and "Yes   
songs"
tend to be oxymoronic, don't you think?).  That was Yes's attempt to go
beyond the standard rock forumla.
<<<
I would tend to call what Yes does not so much multi-instrument soloing,   
but multi-melodic.  There are usually several melodic themes going on in   
a typical Yes song, where the Who has, comparably, a common purpose in   
their melodic theme.  Granted, the layers of melodic themes in Tommy and   
Quad are far deeper than most of what was going on at the time, but Yes   
seems to have made a career out of weaving five (or more)   
insrtumental/vocal/percussion melodies into a single unit.

>>>
But I look at Squire and Entwistle as
both talented bassists who wanted the bass to stand out melodically   
within a
popular music medium.  Squire chose to work in a band that employed   
lengthy
musical passages, more vocal harmonies, and multi-instrument solos,   
whereas
Entwistle worked with a nonstop drummer and a guitarist who shifted from
rhythm to lead within a song.
<<<
Thanks for putting it so succinctly, Jim.

>>>
I think that Entwistle and Squire could, quite
possibly, swap bands and we'd still see those bands functioning well.
<<<
Weeeelllllll,... I don't know if I'd go *that* far...

>>>
Here's a thumbnail sketch of Yes and the Who:

YES: all musicians wanted to stand out and so took their turns at having
solos/passages within the song

the Who:  all musicians wanted to stand out and literally fought for
attention all at the same time
<<<
My thumbnail sketch:
Yes: All musicians wanted to stand out so they all play carefully   
constructed "solos" all the time, but it's okay because they all fit   
together to form a greater melodic object.

the Who: All musicians wanted to stand out so they all play balls to the   
wall in styles totally foreign to their instruments, but it's okay   
because they all fit together to form a greater melodic object.

>>>
 However, I've seen Squire and Yes 4 times and have to argue that Squire   
is a
passionate player--I have rarely seen rockers who look like they are   
having
more fun up there than Chris!
<<<
I stand corrected.  I've seen Yes a bunch of times, and Jim's right.   
Squire always has a ball up there, jumping around like its nothing (no   
easy trick with a Rick 4001, I can tell you - mine is heavy as hell!).   
 What I should have said is that Squire's playing on record sounds like   
he would be sitting down, reading sheet music, perhaps a cup of tea   
steaming quietly to his right, while John's sound brings to mind actions   
like PT is known for.  In reality, the opposite is true.  Chris is   
performing those amazing melodic gymnastics while he's jumping around,   
grinning like an idiot, and John is the one who is a statue onstage.

Anyway, I do believe that Squire was heavily influenced by John and his   
sound and his desire to get the bass out of the muddy bottom of the mix,   
but the similarities end there (except that they're both very nice   
people, of course...)


OK,
KLW